Brief Facts
- The Appellant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that Respondent No. 2, Mallikarjuna, and others created fake documents, including death certificates, family trees, and other records to transfer property unlawfully. Respondent No. 2 was working as Village Accountant and it was alleged that Respondent No. 1 colluded with Accused No. 1 so as to create false documents for usurping the land belonging to the Appellant.
- The FIR, registered as Crime No. 323/2016, involved various charges under the IPC, including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and the use of forged documents.
- Respondent No. 2 unsuccessfully challenged the Complaint before the High Court and the same was dismissed with the liberty to seek legal remedy in event any adverse report was made. Subsequently, Investigation Agency submitted charge sheet against Respondent No. 2 and he again approached the High Court challenging the Charge sheet as well as the Complaint.
- Since Respondent No. 2 was a public servant, the investigating officer sought sanction from the competent authority to prosecute Mallikarjuna. However, the Deputy Commissioner, acting on the recommendation of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and legal advisor, denied this request.
- Respondent No.2 sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the Karnataka High Court upheld the motion, stating that prosecution could not proceed without a prior sanction from the competent authority.
- Dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, contending that Respondent No. 2’s actions were not connected to his official duties as a Village Accountant, and thus the denial of sanction should not prevent prosecution.
Issues
- Whether sanction is required to prosecute Respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public servant?
- Whether fabricating official documents as alleged can be considered part of official duties warranting protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C.?
Held
- Apex Court allowed the Appeal and quashed the order of the High Court after concluding that there was no need of sanction to try Respondent No. 2 as the alleged offence cannot be covered within the scope of official duties.
- This court has been consistent in holding that Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.
- The question whether respondent No.2 was involved in fabricating official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant is a matter of trial. Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant.
- If that be the position, the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint as well as the chargesheet in its entirety, more so when there are two other accused persons besides respondent No.2. There is another aspect of the matter. Respondent No.2 had unsuccessfully challenged the complaint in an earlier proceeding under Section 482 Cr.PC. Though liberty was granted by the High Court to respondent No.2 to challenge any adverse report if filed subsequent to the lodging of the complaint, instead of confining the challenge to the chargesheet, respondent No.2 also assailed the complaint as well which he could not have done.
Relevant Paras
- 23, 25, 26